Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
MSNBC 86
LANGUAGE
English 86
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 86 (some duplicates have been removed)
responds to questions about susan rice -- >> about the benghazi attacks. >> senator mccain and senator graham want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> former cia director david petraeus will testify before the senate intelligence committee. >> general petraeus had an affair with his biographer. people are snapping up copies of the book. >> it's so pathetic. >> the book is available in hard cover and extremely hard cover. >>> today on an i'm sorry i lost conference call with top campaign don't oorors, mitt rom said the president won the election because he game african-american and latino voters, quote, gifts. abc news has this audio. >> what the president's campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote. >> romney also said that the president's campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift so he made a big effort on small things. those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars. he said the president followed the old
about susan rice. she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous. and you know, we're after an election now. i think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in benghazi, and i'm happy to cooperate in any ways that congress wants. we have provided every bit of information that we have and we will continue to provide information and we've got a full-blown investigation. and all that information will be disgorged to congress. and i don't
namely john mccain and lindsey graham for the criticism leveled at susan rice. the u.n. secretary, shortly after the attacks that resulted in the death of four americans, she went on "meet the press" and other sunday shows and said what happened in benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest that morphed in to something else and resulted in the death of those americans. republicans attacking ever since. but now, as susan rice's name floated as a successor to hillary clinton as secretary of state, mccain and graham taken out after susan rice. that, no question about it, it came from the heart and raised the ire of president obama. here's what he had to say. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to -- to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they th
. and that if you nominate susan rice for secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. as senator graham said, he simply doesn't trust ambassador rice after what she said about benghazi. i would like your reaction to that and would those threats deter from making a nomination like that? >> first of all, i'm not going to comment at this point on various nominations that i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. those are things that are still being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice. she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to
nominate susan rice as secretary of state they will do everything to block the nomination and senator graham said he doesn't trust her after benghazi. i would like your reaction to that and would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that? >> at this point i won't comment on various nominations i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. those are thing that is are still being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice. she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had r
the politicization of a public statement that was put out by the entire intelligence committee, which susan rice on the 16th, who was asked to go before the people and use that statement, did. i have read every one of the five interviews she did that day. she was within the context of that statement. and for this, she has been pillaried for two months. i don't understand it. it has to stop. if it continues, it's going to set up once again a partisan divide in these -- the house and the senate, which congressman rogers and i have tried to overcome and have overcome with some success with respect to the intelligence committees. >> congressman rogers, to my understanding, talking to government officials, is that what susan rice said on "meet the press" five days after the attack and other programs as well, was very similar to what then director petraeus said privately on september 14, that there appeared to be a terrorist element to it but that it appeared first to be spontaneous but it became a terrorist attack, and that that was his belief. so were they not speaking basically in the same way? >>
the president's ire, defending susan rice after comments by republican senators john mccain and lindsey graham that they would oppose her nomination to be secretary of state based on remarks she made about the benghazi attacks. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to besmerch her reputation is outrageous. >> indeed. let's get to our panel julian epstein, lynn sweet, washington bureau sweet for chicago "sun-times" and msnbc political analyst professor michael eric dyson of georgetown university. professor dyson,fy might begin with you, perhaps the most hated moment in that press conference was the president's barely concealed anger that republicans have been attacking ambassador susan rice for the confusion surrounding the benghazi consulate attacks. this, as you know, has been the drum beat from republicans from the right wing media for weeks. do you think the preside
. the white house is leaning towards u.s. ambassador to the united nations, susan rice to replace clinton at foggy bottom. rice's confirmation is far from assured giving the questions surrounding her handling of the attacks in benghazi. defense secretary leon panetta made it clear he is ready for retirement. senator john kerry, eyeing the secretary of state position may be asked to replace panetta. adding to the stakes of musical chairs, general allen's confirmation hearing to lead nato has been put on hold. during the campaign president obama called for nation building at home in his second term. he'll need to start by rebuilding his own team. john heilemann, you were a guest on the very first program of this show, there is a lot happening inside the president's inner leadership circle. how much of a problem do you think this is for him? >> first of all, let's not -- let's terry for a moment on -- i have been doing some math, 8,760, that's the number for today, 8,760 hours. >> wow. >> since alex wagner took over that chair and ever since -- >> subjected america to this program. >> and ev
the other way. john boldin, not susan rice, would be the hot talk for secretary of state. war clouds would be overhead and the bugles blaring would be marching to iran. just think self-deportation would be the name of the game for immigration. voter suppression would be the toast of the town, or certain parts of town. the extinction of health care would be hr-1, up there on the front burner for congressional action. just think, if the election had gone the other way the rich would be basking in the best tax protection known to man, a real-life, genuine mandate to leave them and their money alone. but a funny thing happened on the way to the white house. people voted for tax fairness. they voted to make the rich pay their share, specifically voted that way for one thing because the republicans kept warning them not to. and so it came to pass today that president obama said just that at his press conference. give the middle class their tax cuts, speaker boehner. cut it loose so they can go christmas shopping, senator mcconnell. it's what the people voted for. that's why they voted for me. th
, therefore, not in the much talked about talking points that susan rice and others refer to publicly where there was a lot more focus on the potential for a spontaneous demonstration, the video, that kind of thing. that the piece of this puzzle that was more clearly known by the intelligence community of the involvement of terror groups was classified. in part that could be argued as a protection required in order to try to pursue them, that kind of thing. that is new information today, and it helps to show us how there might have been two tracks happening all along. the public statements that were reflecting part of what they may have known. the real question is, if they knew it was terrorism all along, was there too much suggestion that a video or demonstrations may have been involved? that's what people see very differently often based on their political point of view. >> yes, and it is based on political point of view. the fact of the matter, the information that susan rice was provided and what she indicated on "meet the press" and other programs, that would have been a part of the de
's ambassador to the u.n. susan rice. today, the president called and he said, i have had enough. >> let me say specifically about susan rice she's done exemplary work. she represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i have said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. i don't think there is any debate in this country when you have four americans killed, that's a problem. we've got to get to the bottom of it. there needs to be accountability. we've got to bring those who carried it out to justice. they won't get any debate from me on that. when they go aft
to the united nations, susan rice came under fire from republican senators. senators john mccain and lindsey graham, back at it, trying to trump up the ambassador's role in the benghazi consulate attacks. they took their shots at ambassador rice this morning and the president hit back. >> senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> that's loyalty to a staff member. if looks could kill, the president's look would be a cruise missile. it was the most sustained anger, i think it will be the most sustained anger that we have seen and will see coming from this president in a display in a television news conference. now, there is no evidence the ambassador did anything wrong, regarding the benghazi attacks. president obama is not about to let a member of his administration get dragged th
gave us a pregame of accusations, involving ambassador susan rice. some house members say this is worse than watergate. >> this is not simply a coverup of a third-rate burglary. we have four of our diplomatic personnel dead and it has not a mccarthy era tactic to demand that the american people ares no misinformed about it to the point that they don't know what the threat is. >> the loud mouths were john mccain of arizona who spent the last three days despairaging ambassador rice for her public remarks about benghazi early on. >> susan rice should have known better. if she didn't know better, she's not qualified. i will brok her to be the united states secretary of state. she has proven she either doesn't understand or not willing to accept evidence on its face. >> these republicans were certain they were absolutely certain susan rice was not telling the truth. >> so when the president says that susan rice was giving out -- talking about the most updated, fully documented documents, that's not true. >> general david petraeus. the disgraced chief testified to the house and senate committ
diane feinstein defendeded u.n. ambassador susan rice. >> he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement. that is not my recollection of what he told us september 14th. >> to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state i think is a mistake. and the way it keeps going, it's almost as if the intent is to assess nate -- >> joining me now is karen finny a political analyst and armstrong williams a conservative columnist and host of the right side with armstrong williams. hello to you both. good to see you. >> hi, alex. >> ladies first with you, karen. you just heard from congressman king. one of his biggest complaints was the white house held back information that this was a terrorist attack claiming this was classified. this is different from the white house's initial defense that they did call it a terrorist attack right away. are they changing their tune? >> well, what i find interesting is the way congressman king and a number of the other republicans have changed their tune from the night before the briefing and oh, what a difference it makes when you actu
cain over congressional criticism for u.n. ambassador susan rice. >>> also, this morning, violence grows as israel and hamas look to be on the brink of war. we'll have the latest report on the ground. good morning from washington. it's thursday, november 15th 2012. this is "the daly rundown." i'm chuck todd. let's get first to my first reads. president obama wanted to spend his first post election press conference showing he was ready to reach across the aisle. instead, he found himself on the receiving end of criticisms from not one, but two former presidential rivals. the president himself was loose, confident and at times aggressive trying to show he's in charge of these budget investigations. also to appear magazine 1/2 muss. magnanimous. he pledged to sit down with his rival governor romney. >> there are certain aspects of governor romney's ideas that i think could be very helpful. >> while the president was paying mitt romney compliments, mitt romney was telling donors on a conference call a different story. blaming his defeat on a financial what he called them, gifts. what the pre
cain, who also never forgives, and president obama over susan rice. could it be mccain hasn't gotten over the 2008 election? we're sort of stacking up revenge here on the other side. i got nothing more to say about that. >>> plus spy fall, what we're learning about the affair that brought down the cia chief and perhaps derailed the promotion of the top general. and has been tabloid fodder now for almost a week. >>> and besides complaining about how president obama won re-election by giving away gifts to minorities and young voters, ever wonder what mitt romney has done -- actually been doing since the election? well, david letterman has an idea. >> today mitt romney drew a picture of the house of representatives chamber and gave a state of the union address in front of it. >> and the fourth new entitlement, obama care, we repeal that one. >> message from pretend president romney. >> got a few more of those sugar plums in the side shows. let me finish way book about when we hay hero for a president. this is "hardball," the place for politics. ave to eat it as pt of your heart healthy diet.
tragedy. but we have an explanation from petraeus for why susan rice said what she said. that is to say they deliberately obscured what they knew in order to avoid giving away too much to our adversaries. now you could say why did you need to do that? i'm not competent to say what advantage was gained there, but i'm not sure in the alternative what advantage anyone thinks the obama administration was going to get by misleading. the event happened. did anyone think the obama administration was trying to preserve some illusion that terrorists never would hit us as long as obama was president? we have been at war with terrorists 11 years and lost thousands of lives. i don't understand the point that graham is making, and the idea to question why did you put susan rice on the talk shows? administrations make decisions every week about who they will put out to repeat talking points. it doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. >> to that end, then, amy, you have senator graham, other republicans, john mccain for one, they are calling for a special prosecutor. john harwood brings up
on the deadly attack begin as president obama lashes out at republicans for attacking u.n. ambassador susan rice. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> i knee people don't come to spontaneous demonstrations with rockets and mortars for the president of the united states for two weeks afterwards to deny that was the case, is either a coverup or it is incompetence. >> ahead this hour, one of the republicans calling for a wider probe, new hampshire senator kelly ayotte. and what's going on with the generals? leon panetta orders ethics review. the fbi agent, he's the guy who brought down the millennium bomber. >>> taking out the military leader of hamas and fire from the gaza strip. >> israel will continue to take whatever action is necessary to defend our people. >> we'll talk to michae
nations ambassador susan rice. republicans tried to make into a scandal susan rice's comments after the attack on the u.s. consulate in libya. her comments that the attack was thought to be linked to islamist protests rather than an organized terrorist attack. but the administration and the intelligence committee have stepped up to defend her remarks that sunday. and if she is tapped by president obama to replace secretary clinton as secretary of state that would imply that the president is willing to keep backing susan rice up all the way. the current defense secretary is leon panetta. he used to run the cia where he was succeeded by general petraeus. now that seat is also available. the same administration sources talking to "the post" also tell ing that the job is his. the job has made his desire to leave public service, but if he does reconsider, apparently the cia chief job should be his. if mr. brennan decides he does not want the job, the current acting director michael morell looks likely to keep the job. we'll have more on the questions surrounding the petraeus scandal and
on the benghazi attack while holding a news conference. well, he slammed the president and susan rice over her potential nomination that doesn't exist at this point for secretary of state. meanwhile, mccain is now being criticized for slamming ambassador rice but supporting secretary of state condoleezza rice, despite the intelligence failures under her watch. >> that was an entirely different situation. >> plus, smackdown from the right. governor bobby jindal leads the republican backlash against mitt romney's excuse for not winning. why romney's claim of the president's, quote, gifts to blacks, latinos, women and young voters, might be an official hat hash tag fail. >> i don't think that represents where we are as a party and going as a party. >> new comments from the rnc about why romney really lost. we have new information from their official report, and guess what it's missing? the word "gifts." join our conversation on twitter. you can find us @tamronhall a and @newsnation. ♪ i'd like to thank eating right, whole grain, multigrain cheerios! mom, are those my jeans? [ female announcer ]
that hearing to rally around susan rice. >> to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state, i think, is a mistake. and the way it keeps going, it's almost as if -- >> and the middle east on the brink. israel and hamas exchanging fire as casualties mount. amid talk of all-out war. >> will continue to exercise this prudence and self-restraint while defending our citizens against terrorism. >> opening round, president obama and congressional leaders kick off talks to avoid the looming fiscal cliff. >> what folks are looking for and i think all of us agree on this, action. they want to see we are focused on them, not focused on our politics here in washington. >> the framework that i've outlined in our meeting today is consistent with the president's call for a fair and balanced approach. to show our seriousness we put revenue on the table as long as it's accompanied by significant spending cuts. >> i can say on the part of my members that we fully understand that you can't save the country until you have entitlement programs that fit the demographics of the changing america in the comi
the whole white house. take a listen. >> so when the president says that susan rice was giving out -- talking about the most updated and -- fully documented intelligence that the intelligence community had, that's not true. >> last night the message was that susan rice was disseminating incorrect intelligence and the president is wrong for defending her. now here is mr. king today after an intelligence briefing. >> did he seem concerned that things had been changed? was that surprising to you? >> he seemed to say at the time they didn't realize the full significance of that and that or an unclassified statement it was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. >> petraeus told king today that, quote, for an unclassified statement this was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. dana, to paraphrase the president, republicans got out in front of their own skis on this one, didn't they? >> yes. well, in congress they have a tradition of revising and extending their remarks and i think peter king -- what peter king just said was "never mind." >> what he said earlier, what do we do wit
attempt to nominate susan rice as the next secretary of state, describing her as unqualified for the job after she originally characterized the terror attack as a protest gone wrong. she went on the sunday shows including "meet the press" a couple days after the attack and said that. president obama in his news conference yesterday fired back at senators mccain and graham. >> let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> those republican senators were quick to respond to the president. lindsey graham took to twitter writing, "mr. president, don't think for one minute i don't hol
about obama's gifts and mccain's gifts about obama ally susan rice. >> what the president, the president's campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extra financial gift from the government and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote. >> susan rice should have known better and if she didn't know better she's not qualified. she should have known better. i will do everything in my power to block her from being the united states secretary of state. >> let's go after romney first in a way that he's calculating how he lost. you can give all kinds of reasons when you lose. when you spout the argument that the other guy bought all the interest groups, that seems to diminish not just the purchaser but the purchase. you're basically saying these people are up for grabs. you'll never get them again. >> exactly. talking about more than half the voting public as bribery victims or being duped. it's ridiculous and insulting. precisely to some of the grownups that republicans need to do better with. latinos were outraged. african-americans were outraged. w
term. will john kerry now go to the pentagon? can susan rice be confirmed as secretary of state? and will nancy pelosi run for leader again? and what a welcome to washington the new class of congress arriving just in time for a classic d.c. scandal. and a different fall from grace, jon stewart, crowns himself the worst journalist in the world. >> anyone out there who thought i may have actual journalists instincts i give you a snippet of my interview. >> he loves serving, to be in the arena. i thought i was going to test him, he tested me, crushed his pelvis. he wanted to help me with the project. he can turn water into bottled water. >> the whole time i was staring at how defined her arms were. [ inaudible ]. i am the worst jurmist in the world. for god's sake the title of her book was "all in." she might as well -- >> good day. i'm andrea mitchell live in washington. we begin with the broadening and complicated scope of the petraeus investigation that has now ensnared his successor, commander of all forces in afghanistan, general john allen. joining me with their latest report
attacking u.n. ambassador susan rice, someone who had nothing to do with the libya tragedy, mccain was out looking for another tv camera again. hey, america. this is what bitterness looks like. >> four americans died that didn't have to die. and for someone to go out and convey something that is absolutely false to all america in my view bears responsibility. >> i don't know how you logically assume that she had nothing to do with benghazi. the american people were told false information by her at the direction of the white house. >> now, we all know ambassador rice was stating the intelligence that had been provided to her. but mccain wasn't done. >> by the way, i'm not taking anybody on. the american people have lost four brave americans. we owe it to their families. we owe it to other americans who served. we'll find out what happened. for the president of the united states for two weeks afterwards to deny that that was the case is either a cover-up or it is incompetence. either one of the two. i think the president of the united states has a lot to answer for. >> it's obama versus mcca
a rumored cabinet candidate. the blame game surrounding u.n. ambassador susan rice with another u.n. ambassador bill richardson. the boys use capital one venture miles for their annual football trip. that's double miles you can actually use. tragically, their buddy got sacked by blackouts. but it's our tradition! that's roughing the card holder. but with the capital one venture card you get double miles you can actually use. [ cheering ] any flight, anytime. the scoreboard doesn't lie. what's in your wallet? hut! i have me on my fantasy team. what's in your wallet? hut! music is a universal language. but when i was in an accident... i was worried the health care system spoke a language all its own with unitedhealthcare, i got help that fit my life. information on my phone. connection to doctors who get where i'm from. and tools to estimate what my care may cost. so i never missed a beat. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. >>> the house intelligence committee holding its first formal inquiry into
to resolve some of that. even susan rice and what may be her political future if she were to be nominated from the secretary of state position. having that focus on her is also another way of shining a light on benghazi and trying to get more answers. so that's part of what we see is happening. it's complicated, but there seems to be movement in getting key people here to talk about what went on, what was known, and why some things happened that resulted in those deaths. thomas? >> real quickly. yesterday lindsay graham and mccain teaming up to announce the desire for a select committee. >> a select committee would give broad jurisdiction where different committees would have the resources to sort of work together. you saw it in water gate. there are other doing work that said we don't need to establish another one. so it's not openly welcomed as an idea. but it's a way to try to shine a light on the issues. so that's yet to be seen. investigations are under way in different ways. we'll see if a select committee ever happens. >> i appreciate it. i want to say good morning to the political
the talking points? and the talking points is a reference to what susan rice said on a round of morning talk shows just a few days after the attacks that sort of cemented this idea in the initial days that this spontaneous demonstration that officials now say did not exist was a reason for what took place and susan rice at the time also said the intelligence was not fully processed. what we've heard from democrats is this idea that there were sort of two waves of an attack and that sort of supports what they think susan rice and the white house was talking about in the first two weeks. we heard more of this this morning on "morning joe" with our friends there, and chambliss, the republican on the senate side in charge of the intelligence community. here is what he talked about with respect to were the talking points given to susan rice based on classified information, unclassified information, or was there some political overlap? >> we spent an awful lot of time on these talking points. the one thing i can tell you a long time before unclassified talking points are put out by the intelligenc
cain leading the charge. in the process, placing blame on u.n. ambassador susan rice. mccain spent the better part of yesterday on television maligning rice and threatening to block her nomination if the president taps her to be the next secretary of state. yet when mccain and other republicans were given the opportunity to be briefed on the attack, they didn't bother to show up. a two hour closed door session was held yesterday for members of the senate committee investigating benghazi. according to "foreign policy magazine" the briefing included representatives from the defense department, the joint chiefs of staff, national counterterrorism center and the fbi. all players in the room. a democratic aide tells cnn that seven out of nine democratic committee members attended the meeting and just three out of eight republicans showed up. so where was john mccain while his fellow committee members were being given details on benghazi? he was holding a press conference. complaining about the lack of details on benghazi. mccain's office says the senator missed the briefing due to a scheduling err
giving its best initial assessment to dr. susan rice who then gave that assessment to the public on behalf of the white house and then the assessment changed on the part of the cia. i'm not sure what the scandal is but i've heard words like watergate being thrown around which i think goes a step too far and is too political. >> cameras did not catch petraeus arriving this morning even though there were reporters staking out every possible entrance and all we saw was a black car leaving his home early this morning. "the washington post" is reporting also here that the hearings are being held in secret committee rooms used for discussion on national security matters. what do you think this says about how petraeus is viewed on the hill? >> well, i don't know what republicans, whether they're fishing for a scandal or not but i'm fishing for answers. there's no doubt that the public was given misleading and wrong information at the beginning by susan rice. the president was exactly right. she was just reading the talking points she was given by the administration and she was on that s
with me. >> benghazi showdown. >> let me say specifically about susan rice. she has bun examplary work. >> the president the united states is commander in chief. it is not exercise those responsibility. >> this goes back to a grudge since their 2008 election. >> this seems to be getting very political. >> mccain did not attend his classified brief on benghazi. >> this seems to be getting very political. >> is it political or personal? >> mitt romney doesn't get it. he doesn't get the job republican ares want him to do after losing an election that they believe they could have won the job that republicans need mitt romney to do is help them forget the words mit and romney. he is failing at this new job just as miserably as he failed at the job of republican nominee for president. he finds himself rebuked today by those because he has once again be caught on tape saying what he thinks about the american people. >> i absolutely resect that notion and description that is wrong. >> here is the difference then them. louisiana governor will be speaking at the next republican national conventi
with the intelligence community here because i can tell you that this all goes to the susan rice comments on sunday morning, where did she get her intelligence? who briefed her? didn't come from the white house. came from the intelligence community, from the cia. >> exactly. mark halperin, you've been watching this. susan rice with -- on "meet the press" and several of the other shows with david gregory on "meet the press" and when she was sticking to the narrative, in part, sticking to the narrative it had been a spontaneous protest that had evolved from the video, that had sparked it in benghazi that led to the tragic deaths of the ambassador and the three others, and that, of course, proved not to be accurate, a lot of tension with the cia over that and there is a suggestion that because there's a strong interest in susan rice being prepared, if the president chooses to nominate her to replace hillary clinton when she steps down, be that they need to clean that up in susan rice's benefit and that there could be some finger pointing at the cia, mark? >> for all the focus on the fiscal cliff and u
kornacki. part of this story, then, involves the potential nomination of susan rice, the u.n. amambassador, to replace hillary clinton at the state democratic. it's susan rice who a lot of republicans have decided lied to the public. they allege was executing some kind of intentional cover-up plot by the administration. i don't know how that would work or what the cover-up would be. be that as it may, that's what republicans are saying. you have john mccain and lindsey graham both saying if her nomination is put forward, they will filibuster it. are there any indications that that would become an official republican party position, because if the republicans unite, they would have the 40 votes to kill it by filibuster. >> there is a lot of opposition among republicans to a potential susan rice nomination. people are not actively talking about filibuster, although that's the obvious presumption if you talk about members trying to block something like this. in some was they are saying that she was schoezen bied white house to be the public face in the early days after the attack to talk abou
hard answers and talk about appointments. susan rice is an excellent candidate to be secretary of state and i think that john mccain came out just today and said he was opposed to her nomination. i don't think that's a fair statement because susan rice was simply following the advice from general petraeus who john mccain says was a hero so there's a great deal of inconsistency in the republican messaging that needs to be answered. >> mccain's biggest obstacle is the fact she went on the sunday talkers and talked about the video that -- >> and she was following the talking points given to her by general petraeus of cia. how can you say that petraeus is a hero on the one hand but susan rice who is following general petraeus' talking points is not. >> the president has his first press conference coming up in just a couple of hours and as we have been highly aware, the fiscal cliff is certainly going to be a big conversation but can the president get the focus where it needs to be when it comes to the fiscal cliff especially when we have people like paul ryan giving interviews saying he's s
of terrorism was secret and could not be used in public by u.n. ambassador susan rice. >> general petraeus, whose briefing was comprehensive, was added to our ability to make judgments about what has clearly a failure of intelligence. ambassador rice used the unclassified talking points. the unclassified. so she did completely the appropriate thing. >> nbc's mike vigor ra is live at the white house for us. >> good morning, alex. >> this back and forth we just listened to, does this end the dispute about what was said about the attacks in benghazi? >> i doubt that very seriously. it's tenored the political realm as well as the foreign policy and national security realm, and while harry reid, the democratic leader of the senate, the majority leader in the senate, has shot down republican suggestions that there should be a watergate-style joint committee, a select committee in the parlance of washington, to look into the benghazi attacks, of course, and september 11th that left four americans dead including the american ambassador, ambassador stevens, there's always the house of representativ
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 86 (some duplicates have been removed)